Ooo, Ahh, the Fourth of July. There's nothing like a big "Up Yours" to Britain to bring the nation together!
"Hey Britain, tax this!"
Think about it: What is this holiday all about? We are free from being under "big brother's" thumb! Like an arrogant teenager we loudly celebrate the day we moved out.
And look how we celebrate it: We go all out for this holiday! For which other "American" holiday do we universally get the day off of work, gather with other family, barbeque all day, families get together in the center of town, clad in red white and blue, and watch explosive devices in celebration. (Not to mention that nearly every town in the United States has its own fireworks display.) On top of all of this, we toss in some parades, block parties, and tons of live music! Do we do it for Flag Day? Memorial Day? Veteran's Day? D-Day? V-Day? V-J Day? Nope, no, nah, nyet, nine, and no.
It's just one big national middle finger to our "friend across the pond."
Of course, we aren't the only ones to celebrate our independence day. Here are a few others:
January 1st, Australia from England
March 6th, Ghana from England
May 31st, South Africa from England
(Anyone see a pattern?)
July 4th, United States from England
July 5th, Algeria from France
July 6th, Malawi from England
July 9th, Argentina from Spain
August 15th, India from England
August 19th, Afghanistan from England
September 7th, Brazil from Portugal
September 16th, Mexico from Spain
October 24th, Zambia from England
December 24th, Libya from Italy
Ok, so they weren't all from England...
In fact if you visit Earth Calendar you can flip through the holidays celebrated all over the world and you'll find that there are surprisingly few days that do not have a nation's "Independence Day" listed. I think we should name it something else, though. Some thoughts I've had: "Up Yours Day," "We Don't Need You (Unless We're Attacked By Someone) Day," "Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day," or "Pffpt Day."
A little trivia: We share our Independence Day with another nation. Which nation is that?
Speaking of a big flip off to other nations, has anyone thought about what North Korea is doing? Testing missiles on our Independence Day around the same time as our space shuttle launch? Is this Kim Jong il guy nuts or what? Some of the largest, strongest nations have said that if he tests these missiles they would regard that action as a serious provocation. He's like a five year old whose mother just said "no" that he can't have a cookie. He looks up at her and slowly reaches his arm over to take a cookie. Like she's not going to notice.
But we have nothing to worry about. The UN is on the case. The mighty UN who showed Iraq that they were serious about their resolutions. The fearless UN who has taken such an active role in the Sudan. The powerful UN who has caused Iran to reconsider their nuclear programs. The awesome UN who is... what? Out of missile range? Oh, well never mind then.
What's the solution? I think a type of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD is a dinosaur from the Cold War era. Here's the difference. We tell Kim Jong that if he launches a single nuclear warhead and his nation suddenly ceases to exist. No boots on the ground, no invasion, just a few MOABs (Mother of All Bombs - a non nuclear multi-ton reign of destruction). So it's just be AD or perhaps N-KAD.
So happy ""Nah Na Nah Na Nah Na Day" to my fellow Americans.
Thanks for reading that which is just my opinion.
15 comments:
Is somebody a wee teensie bit sleep-deprived and cranky? :-) No offense, but that was some serious frustration against a simple national holiday. Tell us what you really think Marc! :-) But seriously, I often think about our fireworks displays and wonder about the nations of the world which for whom "bombs bursting in air" is still a frightening thing. I guess personally I think of 4th of July more like Veterans Day -- not just our independance from England but our independance secured over and over again through each major war fought by American soldiers. Kind of like those emails that end with "If you can read this, thank a teacher, If you are reading this in English, thank a veteran."
I celebrated the 4th the best way that I can think of.....with a good friend that is finally home from Iraq. (Plus side to knowing an Army specialist: one hell of a fireworks show!) However, I do think that Veteran's Day should be a holiday celebrated outside of work, also.
What are you saying here, Marc, that we shouldn't celebrate Independance Day?
Janitors, you actually brought a tear to my eye. Right on!
As for Mr. Kim (or whatever) in North Korea, I totally think that the US should remove them from the map.
Sorry, please don't misunderstand me. The fourth is one of my favorite "Non-God" related holidays. (Again, not that God didn't have anything to do with the formation of our nation, just that He isn't the main focus of the reason for the holiday.) It just makes me chuckle that if you get right down to the bear bones of the celebration it's about sticking it to England.
Janitors, thank you for your support of our troops. I was also at the Salem fireworks and was not surprised that our service men and women were not remembered. However, as I watched the fireworks exploding over the rigging of the Friendship, and imagined the battles fought on similar ships that were the birthing pains of our nation, I got a little choked up. I was thankful for those who gave their lives then, since then, and now.
I mean this in the most "innocent" way possible (for fear of inciting flaming remarks on this blog): what does having troops over in Iraq have to do with our freedom? Before you yell and scream and throw things at your computer, hear me out.
I have very honestly wondered what Iraq has to do with our freedom from the very beginning, but maybe the problem lies in the definition of what freedom really is and what is its place in the context of this U.S.-initiated war in particular. I support the troops as individuals who are fulfilling a duty to our country that they committed themselves to, but I do not support the war, never have and never will. And YES, you CAN support the troops and not the war. Many, if not most Americans, I would argue, now fall into this camp. At least that's what the polls seem to indicate these days...
Anyway, I have wondered for awhile about that phrase that is all too cliche, that the troops are "fighting for our freedom." Are they REALLY "fighting" for it? How could they fight for something we already have? At least, I thought we already had it. Isn't that what the 4th of July is all about? The freedom we gained as a nation becoming independent from another? So in each war (assuming for the sake of argument that each war is actually justified and legitimate!) is our freedom in danger? Does this mean that we can lose it? I'd like to think that the freedom we celebrate on the 4th of July is a freedom that cannot be taken away because it is at the very heart of our nation. How can we fight for something we cannot lose since it is the heartbeat of why this country exists? The United States exists because it is free. We cannot lose it. We can defend our soil and our people with weapons and fighting, because land can be conquered and unfortunately lives can be lost. I do not wish to believe that we must 'defend' freedom with weapons and military force. Freedom is already there and cannot be taken away. Weapons and military fight people and objects, not fundamental ideals of a nation.
Saying we must fight for our freedom when we already gained it hundreds of years ago reminds me of someone knowing they have salvation and forgiveness of sin from God, yet frantically trying to earn/keep that salvation by thinking they have to get saved over and over as if that salvation could be lost.
Just my ramblings at 1:00 in the morning while I wait for the baby to wake up hungry for food! I realize I may have picked a nasty fight among this blog's clientele. If I've stirred things up and made you mad, made you think, and made you read all the way to the end of this post, then I'm happy. Seriously, let me know if my ramblings about the meaning of freedom make sense. I'm trying to wrap my head around an abstract concept that seems to have been turned into a concrete object. Perhaps it's just my own mind games, but who knows, maybe all these musings and questions at least make sense to someone out there, whether you agree with them or not.
A side note about fireworks. Many of my African friends are from war torn countries and say that hearing fireworks strikes fear in them because it reminds them of the hell they faced at home. Since hearing their stories over the past several years about "bombs bursting in air" in their home countries, I cannot but think of them every time I see and hear fireworks.
2:10. You've incurred no wrath. I'm a bit surprised that you are attempting to equate an earthly concept of freedom with salvation. Even though the Kingdom of God is not like the kingdom of man, there is a similarity. Even with our salvation we are instructed to work it out with fear and trembling. Like freedom, our salvation is a one time and a continuous thing.
Our freedom was won 200 years ago, true. But think about what would happen if we didn't strive to preserve that freedom. Everyday there is a battle to preserve our freedoms: it occurs in the legislatures and courts of this nation.
You name the war, I'll name the threat to freedom. 1812: the British were trying to regain our nation. WWI & WWII Germany wanted to rule all peoples. Civil War (this is an interesting one) The south was fighting for the freedom to cede from the nation, and at some point the north began to fight for the freedom of all people. Vietnam, Korea, & the Cold War: It was feared that if Communism was allowed to spread we'd succumb to it.
Let's look at Iraq: Sadam has called the US the great Satan and has made widely known his desire for our destruction. To have someone like that in power in a nation that was attempting to become a nuclear power would have been a serious threat to our freedom (See N. Korea.) This war was initiated by the UN. They made 35 resolutions and demanded that Iraq submit to them by a certain date, and if they did not the UN would invade. Well Sadam knows (as do most of us) that the UN is impotent and they'd never actually do what they claimed. Therefore, when the date came and went and the UN offered an extension, the US did not. We invaded based on the resolutions sanctioned by the UN.
WMDs are still debated. There is some intelligence that says that trucks were seen crossing the boarder into Syria. There is evidence that is undeniable that Iraq was preparing for WMDs even if they didn't yet have them.
Most of the Iraqi people are thrilled to be freed from their tyrant. The media only tells us about the ones in towns controlled by insurgents. However, every serviceman I've spoken to who has returned from Iraq has told me about all of the thanks and praise they have received as liberators. I even spoke with a guy who doesn't think we should be there but could not deny the reactions he received from the Iraqi people.
2:10, is freedom only for Americans? Should we not encourage freedom in other nations as well? While it was not our initial reason for being there, it has been a great side effect. Should we leave and allow the Suni's or Shiites to take over and create another tyranny? Or should we stay until the Iraqi's freedom is secure?
Poland has a history of being pretty poor at successfully fighting for their freedom. They were a free people, then they were conquered by the Prussian Empire. Then they were free, then they were under the Bohemian ruler, then they were free then they had Germans in their nation, then they were free and then they were under Soviet rule.
If freedom isn't constantly fought for, it will be taken away. And it's not only soldiers who have to fight for freedom. They are the ones who do so abroad, but every time we vote we are fighting to continue our freedom. This is why we have to carefully choose who will represent us in Washington and in our capitol cities. Will we send people who believe that we are intelligent enough to survive without tons of laws and "big brother" protecting us from ourselves? Or will we send people who think they know better how to spend our money, how to protect us from ourselves, and how we ought to conduct ourselves regarding our religion, beliefs, and stances when they differ from theirs.
Sorry, 2:10, you cannot support the troops if you oppose the war. How can you support someone if you oppose what they are doing day in and day out? "I support you in your divorce, but I oppose your divorce?" "I support you in your abortion, but I oppose your abortion?" "I support you while you bull fight, but I oppose bull fighting?" "I support you while you are in battle, but I oppose the battle?" It is logically impossible. It's a convenient way for the left to appear PC. Either you support the troops or you oppose the war, you cannot have your cake and eat it too! If there were a draft perhaps you could squeeze by because it wasn't necessarily voluntary, however, our military is voluntary and do not sign up if you don't want to go into battle.
What is a "legitimate" war?
One quick thought on the point of "supporting the troops and not the war." My dad is retired Army Colonel and does not support this war. Likewise he did not vote for, agree with or "support" President Clinton, yet at the time, he technically served him in his army as the president is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces -- so how can you be a soldier and not support the leader of your military. The issue goes back somewhat to your statement of our armed forces being voluntary. That's trickier than it looks. Yes, you voluntarily join, but, many soldiers see themselves as what's called Career Military. It's sort of half way between voluntary and lifestyle at that point and the question of participating in a war becomes the issue of still being employed somewhere where you might not like how the boss is running things, but you still show up to work each day because it pays the bills and supports the life you have established. So, to support the soldiers is to acknowledge in the way you treat them that it is not their fault that the government they serve has sent them to do a job that you might not see as necessary or even desirable. I think we're all a bit to young to really understand what soldiers experienced when they came back from Vietnam - another war that was widely unsupported. People spat at them on the street. THAT is not supporting the soldier. AND THOSE soldiers had been drafted. To think that our county rejected them as individuals and denied them dignity because they had served in a war that wasn't supported by our people is nothing short of shameful, and I think the idea of supporting the troops and not the war is the understanding that the men who serve are not responsible for the decisions of the leaders of our country. We CAN disagree with the war and still treat a soldier with dignity and respect and kindness and politely keep our opinions to ourselves when in the presense of someone who was out doing their duty and following their orders because they are willing to go wherever there country sends them and do their best regardless of their opinions of the war or ours!
Whew! I didn't know I had such a strong opinion of all this -- hit a nerve I guess being an Army brat!
"following orders?" Where did that get the people who found themselves in Nuremberg?
If you truely don't support the war, do something about it. If I don't like the way my boss is running things, I go elsewhere. People who didn't support Vietnam went to Canada, or college to avoid being drafted.
Too often, we like to think that the entire nation was against Vietnam. If that were the case, would we have stayed there for 18 years? No. It's the vocal ones who get the coverage. If people who DID support the war would protest or march or gather, they'd be heard as well.
So if I'm a soldier who doesn't believe in the war, but continues to fight it, how can you support me? Then, not only am I fighting for something you don't believe it, I'm not even strong enough to take a stand for what I believe in.
AWOL? Desertion? Dishonorable Discharge? How strongly are you against the war? If you are dishonorably discharged by a commander in chief you don't respect is there really dishonor there? You could probably wear that as a badge.
I assert that you cannot support the troops and not the war.
"We CAN disagree with the war and still treat a soldier with dignity and respect and kindness..."
I think this is a great statement. It describes a LOT of people out there, according to a recent poll.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/
articles/2006/06/10/most_oppose_war_
support_troops_poll_indicates/
Perhaps supporting the troops without supporting the war means that we also wish for their wellbeing even in the middle of the hellish bloodbath around them so that they hopefully don't end up being slaughtered and added to the growing list of casualties.
Marc, I was not EQUATING earthly freedom with salvation. I simply was comparing how the two might be viewed.
So, since we invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime threatened our interests...um, I mean, freedom, we should do the same thing in North Korea? Oh wait, there was a statement that alluded to dropping a bomb on them in the original post...
What about other nations not in our "interests" but are currently in desperate situations under evil dictators? What about the nations over the years that desperately needed liberation from dictators, and our government was actually supporting those murderous regimes?
I don't have a problem saying that freedom is not only for Americans. Sure, freedom is an ideal that should be encouraged, but sending tens of thousands of men and women to invade another country and start a war doesn't really send an encouraging message of freedom. Not only are our troops dying, but so are Iraqi citizens.
I guess this leads to the question about what is a "legitimate" war. In my mind, no war is legitimate, even under the guise of spreading "freedom." Tell the American families who have lost their sons and daughters in combat that the U.S. is over there to fight for their freedom. Tell the Iraqis who have lost their children and family members in this war that the U.S. is there to spread freedom to them while at the same time dropping bombs and claiming the lives of innocent civilians. Oh wait, the government needs to account for these human lives and cover their tracks, so they are just seen as collateral damage, an unavoidable part of the war. That way they don't have to feel accountable for each individual human being with an eternal soul that has been murdered.
Here's how I see it: war inevitably involves death and destruction, far too often of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with it. Instead, they are brought into the middle of the bloody chaos. The murdering of any human being, especially the massive loss of human lives in the midst of war, is evil. The actions of sinful human beings destroying one another demonstrates perhaps the greatest evil of humanity. How in the world can that be "legitimate"?
Well, 2:10, I'll respond more later, but it's pretty clear that your first comment was not "in the most "innocent" way possible" as previously claimed as you obviously had your own agenda?
:) Just noticing.
these responces may be bit by bit.
#1 polls are bunk. Just ask Dr. James. I attempt to point that out by having my own poll (which has been malfunctioning recently).
Here are your options:
Do you
1)Oppose the war and the troops
2)Support the war and the troops
3)Support the war oppose the troops
4)Oppose the war support the troops
The fact that two are logical falicies doesn't enter into the poll, but it's an option.
Just like we wouldn't let someone get away with saying they support the war but oppose the troops with out a "huh?" we ought not allow people to get away with #4 either.
Why did I have a feeling that you'd say polls are bunk... :P
And the good Dr. is "from the other side of the ailse." Neither put stock in polls. They are manipulatable and non scientific.
Glad we still know each other! :P
I didn't have an agenda originally, but I wanted to respond to what I was reading on here after the fact. Clearly we all know your agenda regarding the supporting of troops and not the war... :P
BTW, who's Dr. James?
Do you think freedom is the same as democracy?
Do YOU think war is "legitimate?"
Haha, now you've got more to respond to... :P
BTW, I haven't heard the word "bunk" in a long time. It makes me laugh... it's "wicked" funny. :)
Dr. James is a fellow I work with. He and I so rarely see eye to eye politically that it's cause for a hearty handshake when we do.
Freedom and democracy are not equal. If they were, we would not be free. We live in a representative republic, not a democracy. I would say that one aspect of freedom is when the people have a say in what their government does. However, people can (and like sheep probably would) lead themselves back out of freedom if they were given the option.
I believe the only legitimate war is one that protects those that cannot protect themselves when all other avenues have been attempted. WWII- legitimate. Vietnam- legitimate. Gulf War I-legitimate. These were wars that I'd argue were started by others. I don't think the Civil War was necessarily legitimate. And the land grabbing in the West wasn't either.
I've gotta go now. I'll get to the heart of your comments later.
Post a Comment